A Challenge to Our Intelligence.

[KindredSoul]

There’s a very good reason why I don’t believe these myths are possible. It’s quite simply the preponderance of the evidence.

That is just the thing, though; as a Theist, after a preponderance of the evidence I, and many others, have come to conclusions which lead us to believe in God and, more specifically, Christianity in all its supernatural, miracle-believing fullness. We too believe that we have a very good reason for what we believe. We believe the evidence you cite doesn’t even come close to disproving Theism, nor our specific Faith, except in the eyes of one arbitrarily predisposed (whether by mere unintentional chance or on purpose) to believe it does so. What you call a Theist tap-dance, we call learning more about how we should interpret the Faith; unlike you imply, we do not assert that the way we understand the faith in light of science is exactly as our forebears did…apart from (in particular highly specified) dogmatic truths (the likes of which have never been scientifically refuted, such as the Resurrection, and which we believe never will be), we are actually like scientists in that we are prepared to grow intellectually and admit “Oh, so my previous understanding, and that of my forebears, wasn’t completely accurate,” should we be faced with irrefutable evidence–though it is true we demand no less than certainty before we shake up our world view. In this way, we are no more tap dancing than a scientist who alters his world view to accommodate new discoveries, yet who (wisely) doesn’t go about dismissing everything he’s ever known that hasn’t been upset by the discoveries. To say, as the “tap-dancing” accusation suggests, that it is only a matter of time before our Dogmatic truths are also refuted by science would be the slippery slope fallacy, as there is absolutely no reason to conclude that this actually follows from what has been discovered so far.

In disagreeing with our beliefs and our view of the evidence, you might believe we are irrational, that we couldn’t possibly be looking at the evidence without some sense of self-delusion or else we would agree with you. However, theists can–and I have seen an at least equally good case made for it–make a similar claim about non-theists. Why must we take the word of non-theists, no matter how arguably intelligent they may be, that we are the deluded ones, and yet they would not think of taking the word of those arguably intelligent Theists who say that they–the non-Theists–are the deluded ones? Saying “The evidence speaks for itself” is an insufficient answer, because we have already established that the evidence leads some people to conclude Theism is impossible or unlikely, while others sharply disagree after reviewing that very same evidence, and the evidence for its own part comes with no sort of label saying which side is drawing the correct implications from it. Also, in certain regions, such as my own, it is literally no easier to be a Catholic than a non-theist, so the difference cannot be chalked up to “Catholics are more willing to be deluded because it’s easier to be Catholic,” as that is a generalization that simply is not true as a rule at all. Perhaps it explains the ease of belief for vague, non-religious Theists who simply believe in a generic version of God, but it certainly doesn’t apply to Catholics in particular.

The existence of dissonance between the conclusion the evidence leads Theists to and the conclusion that same evidence leads non-Theists to is difficult, perhaps impossible, for either side to explain in a measurably unbiased way, but I do not think it can be resolved by one side standing tall and smug and proclaiming that the other side is unintelligent, irrational, dishonest or delusional in their dissenting survey of the evidence. Both sides have been guilty of this accusation at one time or another, but it is not the answer; it is only a shouting match, and proves nothing. Such comments as some of those you make, clearly taking punches at the intelligence and rationality of Theists, are invoking just such a shouting match, which is why I believe you must step back and observe the irony of your comments from the outside. Perhaps you will come to gain a greater intellectual respect for those who disagree with you as still being rational and intelligent, even if you are still unwavering and vocal, even zealous if you feel it necessary, in your own current conclusions; or perhaps you will go on believing that you and those who agree with you are the only ones employing rational, un-deluded thought. I am personally convinced that to continue in that path would be intellectually naive of you, but you would admittedly not be alone–both Theists and non-Theists by the plenty walk the same path. Can’t win em’ all.

Blessings in Christ,
KindredSoul

 

[Angelo_Michael]

Now, with that thought of yours go to Galatians 4:21-31. That’s what I consider the Magna Carta of Replacement Theology.

You left out Galatians 4:
19: My little children, of whom I travail in birth again until Christ be formed in you,
until Christ be formed in you,
20: I desire to be present with you now, and to change my voice; for I stand in doubt of you.

Also reference Revelation 2:
20: Notwithstanding I have a few things against thee, because thou sufferest that woman Jezebel, which calleth herself a prophetess, to teach and to seduce my servants to commit fornication, and to eat things sacrificed unto idols.
21: And I gave her space to repent of her fornication; and she repented not.
22: Behold, I will cast her into a bed, and them that commit adultery with her into great tribulation, except they repent of their deeds.
23: And I will kill her children with death; and all the churches shall know that I am he which searcheth the reins and hearts: and I will give unto every one of you according to your works.
24: But unto you I say, and unto the rest in Thyatira, as many as have not this doctrine, and which have not known the depths of Satan, as they speak; I will put upon you none other burden.
25: But that which ye have already hold fast till I come.

2 Peter 3:
15: And account that the longsuffering of our Lord is salvation; even as our beloved brother Paul also according to the wisdom given unto him hath written unto you;
16: As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction.

and Phillippians 3:
1: Finally, my brethren, rejoice in the Lord. To write the same things to you, to me indeed is not grievous, but for you it is safe.
2: Beware of dogs, beware of evil workers, beware of the concision.
3: For we are the circumcision, which worship God in the spirit, and rejoice in Christ Jesus, and have no confidence in the flesh.
4: Though I might also have confidence in the flesh. If any other man thinketh that he hath whereof he might trust in the flesh, I more:
5: Circumcised the eighth day, of the stock of Israel, of the tribe of Benjamin, an Hebrew of the Hebrews; as touching the law, a Pharisee;
6: Concerning zeal, persecuting the church; touching the righteousness which is in the law, blameless.

Apparently Paul was able to persuade/seduce Peter with his rhetoric. However, I correlate the sexism promoted by Paul and accepted by Peter as “fornication”, and the making of excuses or justifying of sin in order to avoid [sincere] repentance as the sin of eating things sacrificed to idols.

Consider 1 Samuel 15:
22: And Samuel said, Hath the LORD as great delight in burnt offerings and sacrifices, as in obeying the voice of the LORD? Behold, to obey is better than sacrifice, and to hearken than the fat of rams.
23: For rebellion is as the sin of witchcraft, and stubbornness is as iniquity and idolatry. Because thou hast rejected the word of the LORD, he hath also rejected thee from being king.

Also, the eventuality of Shimei before Solomon is another way I accept my calling, (and Catholicism), in that I view Paul’s influence upon, rebuke of, and manipulation of Peter, [Christians, and/or Christianity,] as a similar abuse as to Shimei’s of David. I believe that I, like Solomon, am called upon to reason with Paul’s Christianity] and his works; and sometimes I view this cause as one of the reasons I may be ushered from this life more rapidly than I might desire, (i.e. to settle a matter in the next life.)

Reference 1 Kings 2:
8: And, behold, thou hast with thee Shimei the son of Gera, a Benjamite of Bahurim, which cursed me with a grievous curse in the day when I went to Mahanaim: but he came down to meet me at Jordan, and I sware to him by the LORD, saying, I will not put thee to death with the sword.
9: Now therefore hold him not guiltless: for thou art a wise man, and knowest what thou oughtest to do unto him; but his hoar head bring thou down to the grave with blood.
…]
36: And [Solomon] sent and called for Shimei, and said unto him, Build thee an house in Jerusalem, and dwell there, and go not forth thence any whither.
37: For it shall be, that on the day thou goest out, and passest over the brook Kidron, thou shalt know for certain that thou shalt surely die: thy blood shall be upon thine own head.
38: And Shimei said unto the king, The saying is good: as my lord the king hath said, so will thy servant do. And Shimei dwelt in Jerusalem many days.
39: And it came to pass at the end of three years, that two of the servants of Shimei ran away unto Achish son of Maachah king of Gath. And they told Shimei, saying, Behold, thy servants be in Gath.
40: And Shimei arose, and saddled his ***, and went to Gath to Achish to seek his servants: and Shimei went, and brought his servants from Gath.
41: And it was told Solomon that Shimei had gone from Jerusalem to Gath, and was come again.
42: And the king sent and called for Shimei, and said unto him, Did I not make thee to swear by the LORD, and protested unto thee, saying, Know for a certain, on the day thou goest out, and walkest abroad any wither, that thou shalt surely die? and thou saidst unto me, The word that I have heard is good.
43: Why then hast thou not kept the oath of the LORD, and the commandment that I have charged thee with?
44: The king said moreover to Shimei, Thou knowest all the wickedness which thine heart is privy to, that thou didst to David my father: therefore the LORD shall return thy wickedness upon thine own head;
45: And king Solomon shall be blessed, and the throne of David shall be established before the LORD for ever.
46: So the king commanded Benaiah the son of Jehoiada; which went out, and fell upon him, that he died. And the kingdom was established in the hand of Solomon.

 

[Ben_Masada]

You haven’t successfully proven that Paul made up Christianity or the Trinity. Yet, as usual, we shall be the ones faulted for not believing your claims.

 

[Ben_Masada]

By the way, my relationship with Christ began before I read the Bible and I read the Old Testament first, before moving on to the New. I didn’t know much about church teachings either way – what I’ve learned (outside of revelation) is generally from Scripture.

.

I would very much like to know how on earth one can devolope a relationship with
“Christ” from reading the Tanach, or Hebrew Scriptures. Would you mind a word or two?

 

[Ben_Masada]

**If you don’t have an answer for the reason of the Temple’s curtain to have been torn completely and for the Temple of Jerusalem to have been completely destroyed (except for the kotel) and for its not having been rebuilt to this day after 1939 years, why question your Christian neighbour’s object of his/her faith? You are doing us (and more importantly, to yourself) a disservice! **

**That’s where you are mistaken my friend. I have an answer for what you ask. There was never such a thing as a torn Temple curtain. That’s a fabrication of the gospel writer to dramatize things and enhance Jesus’ credibility as the one. Josephus would have mentioned such a thing.

And for the second question about the destruction of the Temple, the reason was that the Romans were tired of losing legions of their armies in Israel. They simply found out that the best way to stop Jews from killing Romans was to destroy our Temple and disperse the whole People throughout the four corners of the earth. Satisfided?

Now, explain to me the Christian “Monotheism” of plurality if you can. **

 

[Ben_Masada]

To Jews, is a “satan” (adversary or obstacle) the same thing as a “devil”? When Jesus admonished Peter calling him “satan”, what he said next explains why he called him so. “You are an ostacle on my way. Your thoughts are not of God, but of men.” Men, not the devil…

I did not say we don’t believe in Satan as Jesus did; I said, we don’t believe in Satan as you do. Jesus didn’t believe in Satan as a being; he believed in Satan as a concept to illustrate the evil inclination in man. That’s why he said that as an obstacle or an adversary attitude. But Satan as a being does not exist.

 

[Ben_Masada]

Jesus was the long awaited Messiah foretold in scripture (yours and mine), if you don’t believe that he was, fine, but don’t say that we have distorted the image of Judaism just because Jews did not accept him as such.

**Jesus was part of the Messiah as long as he lived, for being one of the Jewish People. If you believe that the Suffering Servant of Isaiah 53 is the Messiah, mind you that Isaiah
identifies that Servant with Israel by name so that you won’t have to think that he could have been a single individual. Read Isaiah 41:8,9; 44:1,2,21; 45:4. **

 

[Angelo_Michael]

I would very much like to know how on earth one can devolope a relationship with
“Christ” from reading the Tanach, or Hebrew Scriptures. Would you mind a word or two?

It seems that you may have misinterpreted my statement. My [conscious] relationship with Christ began before I read any scripture. It was at a time when I was being struck on the head that I first saw a vision of Christ. The trauma was not just physical but emotional as well – I did not feel loved, I was afraid, and I felt guilty. Nothing I could do would make it stop and the comfort I received was not just the vision, but the feeling of love, compassion, and empathy emanating from it. The trauma was quite a shock, the whole incident was covered-up and made to seem as though it never happened. I was young and this estranged me from my peers. I could not understand any other way but that the entity I had “seen” in the vision was Christ – and not the anti-Christ as was the teaching I had heard of Him – and that the anti-Christ was behind the attack and the cover-up thereof; and that Christ was appearing to me to verify that He was indeed the Christ and that the things I was being taught about Him were lies just like the ones told about the assault. I knew at that time Christ may be the only person I could ever trust and that was that. No Bible necessary.

The portions of the Bible that inspired me the most were sometimes about the angels – the one sent to Joshua, the one who struck down the Assyrians – these were some of the most intriguing. Also, I guess I always felt like I was there when strange things happened. Like I was with Noah and Moses and even the angels. It was a feeling, and if I tried to explain, even to myself, why I believed in them I couldn’t. Mostly I just kept my faith to myself, I didn’t like the resentment associated with resistance and I wasn’t very good at expressing my justification or rationilization for my beliefs. But now I guess I can say that I have heard many lies in my life and the Bible seemed to contrast with them. Moreover, I felt that if I had told Noah, Moses, David, et al. my story about Christ that they would believe me and I also knew how it felt when people didn’t believe me and I didn’t like it. I didn’t know the first time I read the Tanach which scriptures pertained to Christ and I often related to them in a personal way. Especially the estrangement related by David and the devotion of the Levites. The mysteries were interesting too. Who was that figure in the furnace of Babylon? Who was The Prophet promised by God? Was it the Christ? I knew the person who told me that Christ was actually anti-Christ had already read the Bible and I knew I had sustained head trauma and that people didn’t necessarily believe me when or if I told them about any visions. I did not feel afraid of death or torment so much for myself but I wanted to be able to answer them back that Christ was not the anti-Christ without having to have them believe me [about my visions] because by that time I had figured they probably never would.

Consider John 14:
1: Let not your heart be troubled: ye believe in God, believe also in me.
2: In my Father’s house are many mansions: if it were not so, I would have told you. I go to prepare a place for you.
3: And if I go and prepare a place for you, I will come again, and receive you unto myself; that where I am, there ye may be also.
4: And whither I go ye know, and the way ye know.
5: Thomas saith unto him, Lord, we know not whither thou goest; and how can we know the way?
*6: [Christ] saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.
7: If ye had known me, ye should have known my Father also: and from henceforth ye know him, and have seen him.
8: Philip saith unto him, Lord, shew us the Father, and it sufficeth us.
9: [Christ] saith unto him, Have I been so long time with you, and yet hast thou not known me, Philip? he that hath seen me hath seen the Father; and how sayest thou then, Shew us the Father?
10: Believest thou not that I am in the Father, and the Father in me? the words that I speak unto you I speak not of myself: but the Father that dwelleth in me, he doeth the works.
11: Believe me that I am in the Father, and the Father in me: or else believe me for the very works’ sake. *
12: Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that believeth on me, the works that I do shall he do also; and greater works than these shall he do; because I go unto my Father.
13: And whatsoever ye shall ask in my name, that will I do, that the Father may be glorified in the Son.
14: If ye shall ask any thing in my name, I will do it.
15: If ye love me, keep my commandments.
16: And I will pray the Father, and he shall give you another Comforter, that he may abide with you for ever;
17: Even the Spirit of truth; whom the world cannot receive, because it seeth him not, neither knoweth him: but ye know him; for he dwelleth with you, and shall be in you.
18: I will not leave you comfortless: I will come to you.
19: Yet a little while, and the world seeth me no more; but ye see me: because I live, ye shall live also.
*20: At that day ye shall know that I am in my Father, and ye in me, and I in you.
21: He that hath my commandments, and keepeth them, he it is that loveth me: and he that loveth me shall be loved of my Father, and I will love him, and will manifest myself to him.
22: Judas saith unto him, not Iscariot, Lord, how is it that thou wilt manifest thyself unto us, and not unto the world?
23: [Christ] answered and said unto him, If a man love me, he will keep my words: and my Father will love him, and we will come unto him, and make our abode with him.
24: He that loveth me not keepeth not my sayings: and the word which ye hear is not mine, but the Father’s which sent me. *
25: These things have I spoken unto you, being yet present with you.
26: But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you.
27: Peace I leave with you, my peace I give unto you: not as the world giveth, give I unto you. Let not your heart be troubled, neither let it be afraid.
28: Ye have heard how I said unto you, I go away, and come again unto you. If ye loved me, ye would rejoice, because I said, I go unto the Father: for my Father is greater than I.
29: And now I have told you before it come to pass, that, when it is come to pass, ye might believe.
30: Hereafter I will not talk much with you: for the prince of this world cometh, and hath nothing in me.
31: But that the world may know that I love the Father; and as the Father gave me commandment, even so I do. Arise, let us go hence.

 

[Ben_Masada]

It seems that you may have misinterpreted my statement. My [conscious] relationship with Christ began before I read any scripture. It was at a time when I was being struck on the head that I first saw a vision of Christ. The trauma was not just physical but emotional as well – I did not feel loved, I was afraid, and I felt guilty. Nothing I could do would make it stop and the comfort I received was not just the vision, but the feeling of love, compassion, and empathy emanating from it. The trauma was quite a shock, the whole incident was covered-up and made to seem as though it never happened. I was young and this estranged me from my peers. I could not understand any other way but that the entity I had “seen” in the vision was Christ – and not the anti-Christ as was the teaching I had heard of Him – and that the anti-Christ was behind the attack and the cover-up thereof; and that Christ was appearing to me to verify that He was indeed the Christ and that the things I was being taught about Him were lies just like the ones told about the assault. I knew at that time Christ may be the only person I could ever trust and that was that. No Bible necessary.

The portions of the Bible that inspired me the most were sometimes about the angels – the one sent to Joshua, the one who struck down the Assyrians – these were some of the most intriguing. Also, I guess I always felt like I was there when strange things happened. Like I was with Noah and Moses and even the angels. It was a feeling, and if I tried to explain, even to myself, why I believed in them I couldn’t. Mostly I just kept my faith to myself, I didn’t like the resentment associated with resistance and I wasn’t very good at expressing my justification or rationilization for my beliefs. But now I guess I can say that I have heard many lies in my life and the Bible seemed to contrast with them. Moreover, I felt that if I had told Noah, Moses, David, et al. my story about Christ that they would believe me and I also knew how it felt when people didn’t believe me and I didn’t like it. I didn’t know the first time I read the Tanach which scriptures pertained to Christ and I often related to them in a personal way. Especially the estrangement related by David and the devotion of the Levites. The mysteries were interesting too. Who was that figure in the furnace of Babylon? Who was The Prophet promised by God? Was it the Christ? I knew the person who told me that Christ was actually anti-Christ had already read the Bible and I knew I had sustained head trauma and that people didn’t necessarily believe me when or if I told them about any visions. I did not feel afraid of death or torment so much for myself but I wanted to be able to answer them back that Christ was not the anti-Christ without having to have them believe me [about my visions] because by that time I had figured they probably never would.
.

**So, you were struck on your head and had a vision about Jesus. You remind me of Paul on the Road to Damascus. Only that he did this in order to join the Sect of the Nazarenes, but the Apostles did not believe him. They probably thought he was rather lying or crazy, because they knew that when Jesus finally left, he had not taken the direction to Damascus.

Now, for you, to entrust your destiny on a head trauma was too risky. Knowledge and research is much safer. And with regards to the Antichrist, my way to identify him is by checking if he or she is an anti-Semite. Why? Because according to Isaiah, the Prophet, the Suffering Servant of Isaiah 53 is the Messiah, and since Isaiah identifies that Servant with Israel by name in Isaiah 41:8,9; 44:1,2,21; 45:4, it is only obvious that Israel is the Messiah. Since this word in Greek means Christ, Israel is Chist. Therefore, anyone anti-Jewish or anti-Semite is part of the Antichrist. **

 

[KindredSoul]

Very good! Explain Acts 11:26. It was for the reason that Paul spent a whole year in the Nazarene Synagogue of Antioch, preaching that Jesus was Christ, that the disciples started being called Christians. If this is not Paul giving birth to Christianity, I don’t know anymore what it is when a religion is born.

Do you not see the difference between a religion and a name? That the name Christian began at that time in no way means our religion only started at that time. You do realize Judaism wasn’t always called Judaism, don’t you? Does this mean that the supposed faith of Abraham and Moses is really a whole different religion that was really only started several centuries after their deaths, when the word Judaism was first used after Judah (from which the word comes, as I’m sure you know) was separated from northern Israel?

**Faith is what one needs when he does not know and lacks the spirit of research. **

First of all, saying “when he does not know” implicitly (and wrongly) denies that he may indeed know what, to him, the research shows is most probable, even if he needs faith to go from probable to true. Second, what is this “and lacks the spirit of research” bit? If I have faith that a friend loves me–something they could be only flawlessly pretending to do–am I lacking “the spirit of research” when I “fail” to crawl inside their brain and heart and “prove” that they love me beyond the shadow of a doubt? You see, you refuse to admit that there are circumstances where research alone cannot lead us to know everything. I cannot stress enough, millions of people will attest that research alone, even if they researched every available bit of evidence, would not by itself lead them to Judaism. Are they just stupid, so that this apparently airtight proof you have of Judaism isn’t registering? It seems to me that your refusal to consider that Judaism indeed requires faith would imply so.

To tell anyone what we believe is the goal not only mine but also yours and of anyone else. No one undergoes a debate without having his or her mind made up. But I have already revealed my reason to debate Christians and I don’t want to repeat it over.

Yes, but you are not only telling us what you believe, you are telling us what you believe specifically about our religion, and then refusing to hear us out about it–listening to a reason, and then saying we’re just being stubborn or we wouldn’t still be Christian, is not hearing us out. You are telling us that our religion is wrong, and instead of realizing that perhaps this is your own conclusion based upon your own reaction to the evidence, you insist that we must be irrationally ignoring or twisting the evidence. My last post in this thread, Post #220, wasn’t directed to you, but the last two paragraphs would do you a lot of good to consider just as well, if you substitute my and your different views in place of the Theist and non-Theist viewpoints addressed in that post. As of now, it is as though you are completely unaware that someone might honestly, rationally, and intelligently come to a different conclusion than you. Instead of admitting that you simply can’t see how anyone can reconcile Christianity with Jesus’ beliefs, you say things like the following:

**With the above, you have only told me that Jesus’ religion was not the true religion, because your religion is not Judaism. You disagree that, picking up a Jew and claiming that he was the son of God with a woman is not a Hellenistic insult to Judaism. You never cease amazing me… or commonsense. **

Suffice to say, you have yet again made a statement full of opinion, perhaps based on your own take on the evidence, which would be fine if you didn’t assert that those who differ from that opinion are lacking “commonsense”. We believe that Christianity is fulfilled Judaism. You disagree, clearly, but you have said nothing that proves that you are right, nor does your supposed “proof” seem to even persuade most here–and accusing us of being too stubborn doesn’t make it so, so that is an insufficient explanation. As I have said before, you are the one attacking what we believe; the burden of absolute proof, not mere evidence which we clearly see in a different light, is on you. If you were just sharing your own religion and wanting us to consider that we may be wrong, but without attacking our religion, all you would need was evidence to show that your religion isn’t impossible. Since you insist on attacking our religion and saying we must agree with you if we are intelligent, you need a lot more than that, and you haven’t been showing it at all–step back and stop accusing us of lacking logic or of being stubborn and consider that maybe you just haven’t made an airtight case, even if your case convinces you in particular. That doesn’t mean you’re wrong necessarily, it just means, from where we stand, you’re by no means necessarily right either, and for our part and our review of the evidence we remain far more persuaded to Christianity than to your beliefs. That you believe we are wrong is your intellectual right, so far as I can tell, but if you cannot conceive that it is possible to arrive at a different conclusion than your own without lacking intelligence or common sense, then the discussion was doomed from the beginning–as I suggested before.

Blessings in Christ,
KindredSoul

 

[Angelo_Michael]

**So, you were struck on your head and had a vision about Jesus. You remind me of Paul on the Road to Damascus. Only that he did this in order to join the Sect of the Nazarenes, but the Apostles did not believe him. They probably thought he was rather lying or crazy, because they knew that when Jesus finally left, he had not taken the direction to Damascus.

Now, for you, to entrust your destiny on a head trauma was too risky. Knowledge and research is much safer. And with regards to the Antichrist, my way to identify him is by checking if he or she is an anti-Semite. Why? Because according to Isaiah, the Prophet, the Suffering Servant of Isaiah 53 is the Messiah, and since Isaiah identifies that Servant with Israel by name in Isaiah 41:8,9; 44:1,2,21; 45:4, it is only obvious that Israel is the Messiah. Since this word in Greek means Christ, Israel is Chist. Therefore, anyone anti-Jewish or anti-Semite is part of the Antichrist. **

Perhaps the most difficult part of the Tanach for me to accept (psychologically) was the part about the seed of the serpent being bruised on the head and the seed of the woman being bruised on the heel. When my head was attacked it was with the heel of a female – albeit at the direction of another male. My head was upon the ground – hence the similarity to the prostration of Joshua – and the vision was reinforced multiple times and also later in life in another near-death event. That event – a Motorcycle accident wherein I was pinned beneath a vehicle – was very similar in feeling to a dream I had [about it] the night before. The vision was very brief, the confusion very real, and the fear, trauma, estrangement and curiosity were beginning to bother me. By that time, I still had not read the Bible; I was discouraged from doing so by a parent and what I had heard about the 10 commandments was that you are supposed to respect your parents. I do not consider myself or the Christ to be anti-Semitic. But, the genocides that were promoted in the Tanach and the inferences about the retribution that may occur to the “wicked vinedressers/ tenants” in the New Testament only serve to remind of the principle about the necessity for the keeping of the commandments of God by the Hebrew people unless God turns and does to them as He had thought to do unto others. Also, many of the prophetic works I have carried out after the ones already mentioned have been [specifically] inclusive of victims of other races. That first example of the young Hebrew and the anti-Semite is not necessarily divorced from the others as they are all co-relevant with each other. One of the underlying principles has been the issue of the attack upon the head by a perpetrator, and this, I correlated to mean – not that the victims were the seed of the serpent – but that the head of the body is as the heel of the soul. I guess that’s what I mean by practical theology. I don’t know how to really explain that one much more than I already have. Also, sometimes I am encouraged by the appearance of the visions concurrent with [a forced] prostration, (and trauma); and infer that I may be to Christ what Joshua was to Moses: a successor. Not that I am replacing Christ, but that that is part of how I view the role of the “Comforter” as well.

 

[Lapell]

Well, at first, I thought Thomas was like an Atheist who needs to see to believe. But if he thought Jesus was a ghost, he must have been a fake Atheist because legitimate Atheists do not believe in ghosts.

Certainly not an atheist in the sense that he would not believe in God no matter what… a sceptic, more probably. And, like Dostoievski pointed out in The Brothers Karamazov, if Thomas did not want to believe he would not have believed when Jesus appeared. Dostoievski called Thomas (and also Alexei karamazov) a “realist”…

 

[Lapell]

**Neither John nor his followers could write so Hellenistically and so poorly as Jewish life is concern. John and his followers were Jewish. Peter could have never been the first Pope because he was Jewish and not Christian. Logic dictates that the first Pople was Paul, the founder of Christianity. (Acts 11:26) And the Prophet like Moses was Joshua and not Jesus. **

You seem to forget that it’s in the Gospel according to John that Caiaphas’ words were pointed at as authoritative (Jn 11, 51)… Do you believe a plain goy would have pointed out a thing like that?

 

[Lapell]

And the Prophet like Moses was Joshua and not Jesus.

Very good, Y. For Yeshua (Jesus) is a short form of the name Yehoshua (Joshua)! but tell me, why did those who went to ask questions to John the Baptist ask him: “Are you the Prophet?” (John 1, 21)“The Prophet”, not “one of the prophets”!! so Israel was not only expecting the Messiah (and the Jews of today still are, which is very good. And so should we all. He who has found must still be seeking again and again…), but also “the Prophet”, whom Moses called “a prophet like me”…

 

[KindredSoul]

By the way, Ben, I believe we should clarify some terms if this discussion carries on. Some of our troubles may be coming from a difference in the way we treat certain words.

Evidence and proof are two different things.

Evidence is simply something that can, at the very least arguably, point toward a certain conclusion. By its nature evidence can sometimes be subjective. One person may think the evidence definitely points toward a certain conclusion, while another may be able to say “But couldn’t this explain it instead?” This is why evidence alone does not prove anything except that a certain conclusion is possible and therefore not irrational. I would say that it can also prove that a certain conclusion is probable, but due to its subjective nature this depends on who is looking at the evidence.

Proof is evidence that has reached such a level so as to irrefutably confirm a certain conclusion. Proof is objective. No one can deny what it means, or else it isn’t proof. Proof leaves no room for “alternate explanations” or else it isn’t proof. Pretty much, if anyone who isn’t something of a “troll” can argue that the evidence may mean something different than what it is originally contended to mean, it is probably only evidence, and not proof.

All proof is evidence, but not all evidence is proof.

The trouble is, on this thread, I feel that you have often given evidence and expected us to treat it as proof. Likewise, when we have given you evidence of our own beliefs, you have insisted “That’s not proof!” when we never intended to say it was proof, only evidence–the evidence, from where we stand, is quite strong for our beliefs, but due to the possibly subjective nature of evidence, as opposed to proof, you may see it differently.

Blessings in Christ,
KindredSoul

 

[StAnastasia]

prostylizing
…

My niece just qualified as a prostylist. She does hair, nails, and full facials. She is a real pro at stylizing!

 

[Lapell]

**So, you were struck on your head and had a vision about Jesus. You remind me of Paul on the Road to Damascus. Only that he did this in order to join the Sect of the Nazarenes, but the Apostles did not believe him. They probably thought he was rather lying or crazy, because they knew that when Jesus finally left, he had not taken the direction to Damascus. **

You were not there, sir! Moreover you forget that Ananias WAS in Damascus and that he laid his hands on Saul in Jesus’ name. It is Jesus Himself who asked him to do so. Ananias was at first reluctant to do so. Only when Jesus told him that He had chosen Saul to preach in His name (not Saul’s, Jesus’!!) did Ananias accept.Not very different from Moses’ hesitations when God told him He was sending him to Egypt…

 

[Lapell]

**Jesus was part of the Messiah as long as he lived, for being one of the Jewish People. If you believe that the Suffering Servant of Isaiah 53 is the Messiah, mind you that Isaiah identifies that Servant with Israel by name so that you won’t have to think that he could have been a single individual. Read Isaiah 41:8,9; 44:1,2,21; 45:4. **

I don’t know if all Jews agree with you here, Y. … otherwise why have they been expecting the Messiah? Don’t tell me they have been waiting for themselves and themselves alone! (“Themselves alone”… that would be a non-Irish version of Sinn Fein!!)

 

[cthulhubryan]

**I did read both books in 1987. I think Joseph Mendson wrote “The Interview” and made a translation of “The Myth of the Pax Romana.” Now, the why you guys can’t find either, is beyond my understanding. If I had those books with me, I would check some more details to post them here. Sorry! BTW, I went to the Library here in Jerusalem and was equally unsuccessful in my search. I read them when I was in Los Angeles, California. Public Library. That’s 22 years ago. **

Here is the link to The Interview.

 

[Angelo_Michael]

Ben,

I’d like to tell you more about circumcision; to clarify the matter and relate it to the Tanach.

Circumcision was given to Abraham at the time the covenants were being established upon him by God; the circumcision was a mark of the covenant between God and Abraham.

Hebrews generally recognize that Esau was the firstborn of Isaac and that Jacob, his twin, was younger; and that the right of firstborn was purchased by Jacob from Esau for a bowl of lentil soup and some bread. And Edom is said to unjustifiably and violently oppress Jacob [in Obadiah, et al.].

This situation parallels with the relationship between Abel and Cain. Cain was the firstborn of Adam and Abel was the younger brother. Cain eventually killed Abel and Abel’s blood “cried out to God from the ground.” I believe Abel’s blood became the purchase price for the right of firstborn of Adam’s children from Cain.

Seth was given as a replacement for Abel; but Abel is already established as the firstborn and later, at the time of Abraham, the circumcision is given [also] as sort of a tax (with Abel as [like a] Melchizedek) for the leasing (from Abel) of the right of firstborn of the sons of Adam unto his (Abraham’s) male descendants.

So, in a like manner as when Christ commanded to, “give unto Ceasar that which is Ceasar’s and give unto God that which is God’s,” I would also argue that the tax owed to Abel (i.e. [male] circumcision) should also be given unto him.

It is important to note that I am not advocating the trespassing of the law about not making cuts in oneself for the dead, but reinforcing Christ’s teaching that, “God is the God of the living.”